Introduction

Inhibition of interleukin (IL)-23 has been demonstrated as a safe and effective mechanism of action for treating various chronic inflammatory diseases, including Crohn's disease (CD). The phase 3b SEQUENCE study directly compared the efficacy and safety of risankizumab (RZB), a selective IL-23 p19 subunit inhibitor, and ustekinumab (UST), an IL-12/IL-23 p40 subunit inhibitor, in patients (pts) with moderate to severe CD.

Aims & Methods

SEQUENCE, an open-label, multicenter, randomized, efficacy assessment-blinded study, enrolled pts who previously failed ≥1 anti-TNF therapies and had a CD Activity Index score of 220-450, Simple Endoscopic Score for CD ≥6 for ileocolonic or colonic disease (≥4 for isolated ileal disease) excluding the presence of narrowing component, plus an average (avg) daily stool frequency ≥4 and/or avg daily abdominal pain score ≥2. In Part 1 of the trial, described herein, pts were randomized 1:1 to receive RZB (600 mg IV induction dosing at baseline [BL], weeks [wks] 4 and 8, followed by 360 mg SC maintenance dosing every 8 wks [Q8w] starting at wk12) or UST (a single weight-based IV induction dose, followed by 90 mg SC maintenance dosing Q8w starting at wk8) over a period of 48 wks.¹ Randomization was stratified by number of anti-TNF therapies failed (1, >1) and steroid use at BL (Y, N). A mandatory steroid taper started at wk2. Two primary endpoints were clinical remission at wk24 (non-inferiority of RZB vs UST in 50% of planned subjects) and endoscopic remission at wk48 (superiority of RZB vs UST). Ranked secondary endpoints included clinical remission at wk48, endoscopic response at wks 48 and 24, steroid-free (SF) endoscopic remission at wk48, and SF clinical remission at wk48 (all tested for superiority of RZB vs UST). Safety was assessed throughout the trial.

Results

Variable	RZB N=255 n/N (%)	UST N=265 n/N (%)	Treatment Difference RZB – UST % [95% CI]
Primarya 1. Clinical remission at wk 24 (ITT-1Hb) 2. Endoscopic remission at wk 48 (ITT-1d) Ranked Secondarya,d 1. Clinical remission at wk 48 2. Endoscopic response at wk 48 3. Endoscopic response at wk 24 4. Steroid-free endoscopic remission at wk 48 5. Steroid-free clinical remission at wk 48	75/128 (58.6%) 81/255 (31.8%) 155/255 (60.8%) 115/255 (45.1%) 115/255 (45.2%) 80/255 (31.4%) 155/255 (60.8%)	54/137 (39.5%) 43/265 (16.2%) 108/265 (40.8%) 58/265 (21.9%) 70/265 (26.4%) 41/265 (15.5%) 107/265 (40.4%)	Non-inferiorityc met; 18.4 [6.6, 30.3] 15.6 [8.4, 22.9], P<0.0001 19.7 [11.3, 28.1], P<0.0001 23.3 [15.4, 31.2], P<0.0001 18.9 [10.9, 26.9], P<0.0001 15.9 [8.8, 23.1], P<0.0001 20.1 [11.7, 28.4], P<0.0001
Treatment Emergent Adverse Events (AEs)e	RZB N=262 PYs = 257.6 Events (E/100PYs)f	UST N=265 PYs = 269.9 Events (E/100PYs)f	Treatment Difference RZB – UST % [95% CI]
All TEAEs Investigator-defined drug-related AEg,h Severe AE Serious AE AEs leading to study drug discontinuation Death Adverse Events of Special Interest Adjudicated MACE/Extended MACEi Serious infections Active tuberculosis Opportunistic infections excluding tuberculosis and herpes zosterj Herpes zoster Malignant tumoursk Non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC) Malignancies excluding NMSC Hypersensitivity Serious hypersensitivity Adjudicated anaphylactic reaction Hepatic events Injection site reactions	879 (341.2) 167 (64.8) 60 (23.3) 36 (14.0) 10 (3.9) 0 0 10 (3.9) 0 1 (0.4) 1 (0.4) 1 (0.4) 1 (0.4) 0 37 (14.4) 0 0 26 (10.1) 5 (1.9)	763 (282.7) 111 (41.1) 82 (30.4) 64 (23.7) 14 (5.2) 0 1 (0.4) 14 (5.2) 0 0 1 (0.4) 1 (0.4) 0 1 (0.4) 32 (11.9) 0 0 23 (8.5)i 8 (3.0)	58.5 (28.3, 88.7) 23.7 (11.2, 36.2) -7.1 (-15.9, 1.7) -9.7 (-17.1, -2.4) -1.3 (-4.9, 2.3) 0 -0.4 (-1.1, 0.4) -1.3 (-4.9, 2.3) 0 0.4 (-0.4, 1.1) 0.0 (-1.0, 1.1) 0.0 (-1.0, 1.1) 0.4 (-0.4, 1.1) -0.4 (-1.1, 0.4) 2.5 (-3.7, 8.7) 0 0 1.6 (-3.6, 6.8) -1.0 (-3.7, 1.6)
AE – adverse event; BL - baseline; CD – Crohn’s disease; CDAI – CD activity index; ITT – intention to treat; RZB - risankizumab; PY, patient years; SES-CD, simple endoscopic score for CD; TEAE – treatment emergent AE; UST – ustekinumab; wk, week Clinical remission – CDAI < 150 Endoscopic remission - SES-CD ≤ 4 and at least a 2-point reduction versus BL and no sub score greater than 1 in any individual variable, as scored by a central reviewer blinded to treatment allocation Endoscopic response - decrease in SES-CD > 50% from BL (or for pts with isolated ileal disease and a BL SES-CD of 4, at least a 2-point reduction from BL), as scored by central reviewer Steroid-free endoscopic remission - endoscopic remission and not receiving steroids at the corresponding visit Steroid-free clinical remission - clinical remission and not receiving steroids at the corresponding visit *SEQUENCE Part 1 compared the efficacy and safety of RZB versus UST over 48 wks, while Part 2 is an ongoing open-label long-term extension to evaluate the long-term safety of RZB in pts who received RZB in Part 1 and completed wk48 visit. aCategorical variables were analyzed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test. For both the primary and secondary endpoints, the non-responder imputation while incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing data (due to COVID-19 or geopolitical conflict) was used. Primary and secondary endpoints were tested sequentially in the order specified using the CMH risk difference estimate test stratified by the number of failed anti-TNF therapies (1, > 1) and steroid use at baseline (yes, no). bITT1H population is a subset of ITT-1 population and includes approximately 50% of ITT1 subjects who have opportunity to reach wk24 by the time of the primary analysis of CDAI clinical remission at wk24; non-inferiority of RZB vs. UST cNon-inferiority test: If the lower limit of 95% confidence interval based on the CMH estimation for the risk difference between RZB and UST groups (RZB – UST) was greater than the negative of 10% noninferiority margin, then noninferiority was demonstrated for clinical remission at wk24. If non-inferiority was demonstrated for clinical remission (CDAI) at Week 24, the superiority for the endoscopic remission at Week 48 was subsequentially tested at two-sided significance level of 0.05 using the CMH test. dIntent-to-treat-1 (ITT-1) population included all randomized subjects who were randomized to RZB with the selected RZB dose (RZB 600 mg IV followed by RZB 360 mg SC) or UST and who received at least 1 dose of study drug during Part 1 of the study; superiority of RZB vs. UST eTEAEs are events that begin either on or after the first dose of UST or RZB in Part 1 and until the first dose of study drug (RZB) in Part 2 if the pt is enrolled into the Part 2 or within 140 days after the last dose administration of the study drugs (UST or RZB) in Part 1 if the pt does not participate in Part 2. Only safety data obtained before 12JUL2023 or Week 52 dosing date (the first dose date of Part 2), whichever occurred earlier, are reported here. fSA1 population includes all pts who received at least 1 dose of study drug during Part 1 of the study. gAs assessed by investigator hRZB related: 3 patients with SAEs related to RZB (anal fistula, anal abscess, campylobacter, cystitis, localized infection, genital fistula); 8 patients with SAEs related to UST (abdominal pain, anal fistula, CD, ileal stenosis, vomiting) iMACE: Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events, defined as cardiovascular death or death due to stroke, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and non-fatal stroke; extended MACE defined as MACE with hospitalization for unstable angina and coronary revascularization procedures jOpportunistic infection: RZB, oesophageal candidiasis kMalignant tumor: RZB, squamous cell carcinoma of skin; UST, anal squamous cell carcinoma iOne case of potential Hy’s Law in the UST treatment group

In total, 520 pts were randomized and assessed for efficacy: RZB (N=255) and UST (N=265). The proportion of pts who completed the study was numerically higher with RZB (89.4%) vs UST (74.0%). The two primary endpoints of the study were met. At wk24, in half of the patients enrolled, clinical remission rates were 58.6% (75/128) for RZB and 39.5% (54/137) for UST (Δ18.4 [6.6-30.3], non-inferiority met with the pre-defined margin of 10%) (Table). At wk48, endoscopic remission rates were 31.8% (81/255) for RZB and 16.2% (43/265) for UST (Δ15.6% [8.4-22.9], P<0.0001 for superiority). RZB was superior to UST for all secondary endpoints (all P<0.0001). Exposure adjusted adverse event (AE) rates (Events [E/100PYs]) were comparable between RZB (879 [341.2]) and UST (763 [282.7]). Rates of serious AEs and AEs leading to study drug discontinuation were numerically higher with UST than RZB (Table). Rates of serious infections and hepatic events were similar between treatment groups, with no serious hepatic events with RZB. Two cases of malignancy were reported (one in each treatment arm). There was one event of adjudicated MACE with UST. There were no deaths.

Conclusion

In pts with moderate to severe CD who failed anti-TNF therapy, RZB demonstrated non-inferiority to UST in achieving wk24 clinical remission, superiority in achieving wk48 endoscopic remission, and superiority for achieving all secondary endpoints. The safety profiles of RZB and UST were consistent with previously published results.

References

1. Stelara Label [Internet]. Available from: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2022/125261s161lbl.pdf

Disclosure

Laurent Peyrin-Biroulet: Fees: Galapagos, AbbVie, Janssen, Genentech, Alimentiv, Ferring, Tillots, Celltrion, Takeda, Pfizer, Index, Sandoz, Celgene, Biogen, SamsungBioepis, Inotrem, Allergan, MSD, Roche, Arena, Gilead, Amgen, BMS, Vifor, Norgine, Mylan, Lilly, Fresenius Kabi, OSEImmunotherapeutics, Enthera, Theravance, Pandion, Gossamer, Viatris, ThermoFisher, ONOPharma, Mopac, Cytoki, Morphic, Prometheus, Applied MolecularTransport; J. Casey Chapman: Consultant: AbbVie, Medtronic; Advisory Board: AbbVie, Pfizer, Takeda; Speaker: AbbVie, BMS, Janssen, Pfizer, Takeda; Jean-Frederic Colombel: Grants: AbbVie, Janssen, Takeda, BMS; Speaking fees: AbbVie, Takeda; Consultant: AbbVie, Amgen, AnaptysBio, Allergan, Arena, BI, BMS, Celgene, Celltrion, Lilly, Ferring, Galmed, GSK, Genentech (Roche), Janssen, Kaleido, Immunic, IterativeScopes, Merck, Landos, Microba Life Science, Novartis, Otsuka, Pfizer, ProtagonistTherapeutics, Sanofi, Takeda, TiGenix, Vifor; Stock options: IntestinalBiotechDevelopment; Flavio Caprioli: Consultant: AbbVie, MSD, Takeda, Janssen, Roche, Celgene, BMS, Galapagos, Gllead, Pfizer, Mundipharma, Galapagos, Biogen; Speaker: AbbVie, Ferring, Takeda, AllergyTherapeutics, Janssen, Pfizer, Biogen; Research grants: Giuliani, Sofar, MSD, Takeda, AbbVie; Geert D’Haens: Advisor: AbbVie, Ablynx, ActiveBiotechAB, AgomabTherapeutics, Alimentiv, Allergan, Alphabiomics, Amakem, Amgen, AMPharma, AppliedMolecularTherapeutics, Arena, AstraZeneca, Biogen, BMS, BI, Celltrion, DSMPharma; Echo, Engene, Exeliom, Ferring, Dr Falk, Galapagos, Genentech/Roche, Gilead, GSK, Gossamerbio, Immunic, J&J, Kintai, Lilly, Lument, Lycera, Medtronic, MSD, MitsubishiTanabe, NovoNordisk, Otsuka, Pfizer, Photopill, ProciseDx, Prodigest, Progenity, Prometheus/Nestlé, Protagonist, RedHill, SamsungBioepis, Sandoz, Seres, Setpoint, Shire, Takeda, Teva, Tillotts, Topivert, Versant, Vifor. Marc Ferrante: Grants: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, EG, Janssen, Pfizer, Takeda, Viatris; Consultant: AbbVie, Agomab, BI, Celgene, Celltrion, Lilly, Janssen-Cilag, Medtronic, MSD, Pfizer, Regeneron, SamsungBioepis, Sandoz, Takeda, ThermoFisher; Speaker: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, BI, Falk, Ferring, Janssen-Cilag, Lamepro, MSD, Pfizer, Sandoz, Takeda, Truvion, Viatris; Stefan Schreiber: Consultant: AbbVie, Amgen, Arena, BMS, BI, Celltrion, Dr Falk, Ferring, Fresenius, Galapagos, Genentech, Gilead, GSK, IMAB-Biopharma, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis/Sandoz, Pfizer, Protagonist, Takeda, Theravance. Raja Atreya: Speaker, consultant, or grants: AbbVie, Amgen, Arena, Biogen, BI, BMS, Cellgene, Celltrion, DrFalk, Galapagos, Gilead, InDex, Janssen-Cilag, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pandion, Pfizer, Roche, SamsungBioepis, Takeda, Viatris; Silvio Danese: Consultant: AbbVie, Alimentiv, Allergan, Amgen, AstraZeneca, AthosTherapeutics, Biogen, BI, Celgene, Celltrion, Lilly, Enthera, Ferring, Gilead, Hospira, Inotrem, Janssen, J&J, MSD, Mundipharma, Mylan, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Sublimity, Takeda, TiGenix, UCB, and Vifor; Lecture fees: Abbvie, Amgen, Dr Falk, Ferring, Gilead, Janssen, Mylan, Pfizer, Takeda. James O. Lindsay: Consultant/advisory board: AbbVie, AtlanticHealthcare, BMS, Celgene, Celltrion, Lilly, Ferring, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, MSD, Napp, Pfizer, Shire, Takeda, Vifor; Speaker fees/sponsorship: AbbVie, Ferring, Janssen, MSD, Napp, Norgine, Pfizer, Shire, Tillotts, Takeda; Grants: AbbVie, Gilead, Pfizer, Shire, Takeda; Peter Bossuyt: Grants: AbbVie, Amgen, Janssen, Mundipharma, Mylan, Pfizer; Speaker: AbbVie, Celltrion, Janssen, Pfizer, Takeda; Advisory Board: AbbVie, Arena, BMS, Hospira, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Mundipharma, PentaxMedical, Pfizer, PSI CRO, Roche, Sandoz, Takeda; Britta Siegmund: Consultant: AbbVie, Arena, BI, BMS, Celgene, Falk, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, Prometheus, Takeda; Speaker’s fees: AbbVie, CEDServiceGmbH, Falk, Ferring, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda; Peter Irving: Grants/ Fees: Janssen, MSD,Takeda; Personal fees: AbbVie, Arena, Dr. Falk, Lilly, Ferring, Genentech, Hospira, Pfizer, Pharmacosmos, SamsungBioepis, Sandoz, Shire, Tillotts, TopiVert, VHsquared, Vifor, WarnerChilcott. Remo Panaccione: Consultant: AbbVie, Abbott, Alimentiv, Amgen, Arena, AstraZeneca, BMS, BI, Celgene, Celltrion, Cosmos, Eisai, Elan, Ferring, Galapagos, Genentech, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Mylan, Oppilan, Pandion, Pfizer, Progenity, Protagonist, Roche, Sandoz, Satisfai, Schering-Plough, Shire, Sublimity, Theravance, UCB, Takeda; Speaker: AbbVie, Arena, Celgene, Ferring, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Shire, and Takeda; Grants: AbbVie, Ferring, Janssen, Pfizer, Takeda; Advisory board: AbbVie, Amgen, Arena, BMS, Celgene, Celltrion, Ferring, Galapagos, Genentech, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Mylan, Oppilan, Pandion, Pfizer, Sandoz, Shire, Sublimity, Takeda, Theravance. Marla Dubinsky: Consultant: AbbVie, Arena, BMS, Celgene, Lilly, Genentech, Gilead, Janssen, Pfizer, Prometheus, Takeda; Founder/shareholder Trellus Health.
Ezequiel Neimark, Kori Wallace, Toni Anschutz, Kristina Kligys, W Rachel Duan, Valerie Pivorunas, Xiu Huang, Sofie Berg, Lei Shu: AbbVie full-time employees; may own AbbVie stock or options.

Introduction

Response to hepatitis B vaccine (HBV) is variable in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients with seroconversion rates of 34-89%. Strategies suggested to improve the seroconversion rates are double dose, accelerated schedule, or addition of booster dose with variable results. This study compared the standard (20 µg) dose and double (40 µg) dose of HBV vaccination in IBD patients.

Aims & Methods

Patients of IBD were randomized to 1:1 to receive standard or double dose of HBV at 0, 1 and 6 months. Anti-HBs titers were assessed at 1 month after the third dose. Response was defined as an adequate immune response (AIR, anti-HBs titer >10 mIU/mL) and effective immune response (EIR, anti-HBs titer >100 mIU/mL). Total mayo score and Crohn’s disease activity index (CDAI) was used to identify the active disease. IBD medications with immunosuppressive effects were categorized as immunomodulators, corticosteroids, tofacitinib and biologic group. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was done to identify the predictors of AIR and EIR.

Results

Eighty-eight patients of IBD were randomized to receive standard (45, 51.1%) or double (43, 48.9%) dose of HBV. 79 of 88 patients had ulcerative colitis (UC) and 9 had Crohn’s disease (CD). 49 (55.7%) patients had active disease while 39 (44.3%) were in remission. At the end of the study, total 63 (71.61%) patients achieved AIR and 51 (60%) achieved EIR. AIR (88.4 % vs. 55.6 %, p 0.001) and EIR (69.8% vs. 46.7%, p = 0.028) rates were significantly higher with double dose compared to standard dose of HBV. Patients with active IBD had higher AIR (87.5% vs. 44%, p = 0.001) and EIR (70.8% vs. 32%, p = 0.007) rates with double dose of HBV. Patients with IBD in remission also had higher AIR (89.5% vs. 70%) and EIR (78.4% vs. 65%) rates with double dose of HBV, though statistically non-significant.
Multivariable analysis identified the use of double dose of HBV {odds ratio (OR) 10.865, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.418-48.817} and biologic (OR 0.022, 95% CI: 0.001-0.421) as predictors to achieve AIR. Similarly, double dose of HBV (OR 3.0, 95% CI: 1.087-8.280) and use of biologic (OR 0.074, 95% CI: 0.006-0.931) also predicted the EIR.

Conclusion

Double dose of HBV vaccine demonstrated a superiority over standard dose of vaccine for achieving both AIR and EIR. Use of biologic impaired the response. Double dose of HBV should be used in IBD patients to improve the seroconversion rates.

Disclosure

No conflict of Interest

Introduction

As a small but important component of the intestinal microbiota, the fungal community (mycobiota) has received increasing attention for its involvement in the pathogenesis of Crohn's disease (CD)¹. In our previous study, we identified a significantly increased relative abundance of Exophiala dermatitidis (E. dermatitidis) in the gut of patients with CD, particularly those with active disease². Caspase recruitment domain family member 9 (CARD9), a key adaptor molecule in antifungal immune responses³, has also been strongly associated with CD susceptibility⁴. In this study, we aimed to explore the potential role and underlying mechanisms of E. dermatitidis in intestinal inflammation.

Aims & Methods

To evaluate the impact of E. dermatitidis on intestinal inflammation, we generated Card9-knockout (KO) (Card9^-/-) mice and constructed a dextran sulfate sodium (DSS)-induced colitis model colonized by E. dermatitidis. The underlying molecular mechanisms were investigated by a range of biochemical approaches. Flow cytometry was performed to analyze the proportions of myeloid cells, including CX3CR1⁺ macrophages, in the colonic lamina propria (LP).

Results

Compared to mice with DSS-induced colitis alone (WT-DSS group), the DSS-treated mice colonized by E. dermatitidis (WT-DSS + Ed group) showed a significant weight loss, a worsening of disease activity, a shorter length of the large intestine, and more severe intestinal inflammation characterized by increased inflammatory cell infiltration and crypt destruction in the histological examination of colon hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) staining. Card9^-/- mice were used to further investigate whether E. dermatitis-mediated inflammation was dependent on the CARD9 signaling pathway. We observed that CARD9 deficiency protected against E. dermatitidis-exacerbated colitis, as measured by a higher trend of body weight, longer colon lengths, and amelioration of disease activity in the KO-DSS + Ed group. In addition, flow cytometric analysis of the colonic lamina propria revealed a higher percentage proportion of CX3CR1+ macrophages in the WT-DSS + Ed group and a markedly reduced proportion in the KO-DSS + Ed group. Furthermore, we identified the Mincle-Syk-CARD9-nuclear factor kappa-B (NF-κB) signaling pathway as playing an important role in mediating the inflammatory immune responses to E. dermatitidis.

Conclusion

E. dermatitidis exacerbates the DSS-induced colitis in mice through the Mincle-Syk-CARD9-NF-κB pathway with the participation of CX3CR1+ macrophages, providing a novel therapeutic strategy for CD targeting specific intestinal fungi.

References

1. Sokol H, Leducq V, Aschard H, et al. Fungal microbiota dysbiosis in IBD. Gut 2017;66:1039-1048.
2. Zeng L, Feng Z, Zhuo M, et al. Fecal fungal microbiota alterations associated with clinical phenotypes in Crohn's disease in southwest China. PeerJ 2022;10:e14260.
3. Hu A, Hu Z, Zou H, et al. CARD9 in host immunity to fungal, bacterial, viral, and parasitic infections: An update. Frontiers In Microbiology 2022;13:1021837.
4. Franke A, McGovern DPB, Barrett JC, et al. Genome-wide meta-analysis increases to 71 the number of confirmed Crohn's disease susceptibility loci. Nature Genetics 2010;42:1118-1125.